Sadly, Molly Ivins Has Passed

Molly Ivins has died. If there is one thing I'll never forget in my life about Molly Ivins, it is a story she told about a Texas politician facing a tough re-election, though I can't remember his name. Anyway, the story goes as such.

A Texas politician was facing a tough re-election so he came up with the brilliant idea of having his brother-in-law shoo him in the arm with a shotgun. He filed a false police report and with his newly wounded wing held in place with a red, white, and blue sling hit the campaign trial.

While out on the stump he told everyone who asked about his arm that he had been shot by, get this, satanic communists who hated him because he was so pro-family. To be honest, I'm surprised someone hasn't tried this recently substituting terrorists for the aforementioned satanic communists.

His re-election started to look up, but then it all came tumbling down. There was a witness. In fact, that witness happened to be the shooter. After a few too many Lone Stars down at the local roadhouse the brother-in-law let the cat out of the bag. Unfortunately, a supporter of the other candidate found out and called the county sheriff.

A warrant was issued for the politician and acting on a tip, the Texas Rangers executed a search warrant of the politician's mother's house. They found him cuddled up inside the storage section of his mother's television / stereo console set. (This story obviously goes back a few years)

That was that for the politician's career.

Thanks for the many other memories from your years of great writing Molly, you will be missed.

Update: Apparently this guy's name was Mike Martin

Joe Biden Hits The Campaign Trial Hopping

Joe Biden is oft to a hopping start with one foot pogoing down the street and the other firmly wedged in his always moving yap. Here's what Joe had to day about primary opponent Barack Obama. From the NY Observer:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

A completely different guy from all the other African-American politicians who only speak ebonics, never shower, and are dumb and ugly.

Bye Joe.

Affix Bayonets To Broomsticks, Advance

More on the lack of equipment for US personnel in both Iraq and Afghanistan comes to us from BusinessWeek:

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn't been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to "effectively complete their missions" and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General's office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found.

"As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment," reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary.

Pentagon officials did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

The audit supports news reports and other evidence that U.S. troops have been stretched too thin or have performed tasks for which they were ill-prepared. It is likely to add fuel to the opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq in an effort to quell the violence there.

The report goes on to fault Centcom for lacking standard procedures for handling requests and tracking requirements, but hey, we're getting a new Centcom Commander. Spencer Ackerman isn't impressed. From Too Hot For TNR:

I'm working on a quick piece on this right now, so more later, but I just got back from Admiral Bill Fallon's hearing to head Central Command, and I've never heard a military officer testify for nearly four hours and fail to exhibit an understanding of even one issue he's about to grapple with. Anyway, as they say, more TK.

Even when thrown a softball by Lindsey Graham about the surge, Fallon deferred to answering at a later date after he was up to speed on the region. Fallon claims he has been busy with his job as Pacific Commander so he "tried to stay away from the detail of Central Command until such time as I might be confirmed, then I intend to dive into it." Now might be the time.
.
So, why are we installing a Navy man as the commander of a region where we are embroiled in two ground wars? Secretary of Defence Robert Gates addresses that issue in today's Washington Post. From the Post:

"The reality is, if you look at the Centcom area of responsibility, there's a lot of water there," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters Friday, when asked why he recommended Fallon. "And as you look at the range of options available to the United States, the use of naval and air power, potentially, it made sense to me for all those reasons for Admiral Fallon to have the job."

Pirates? Or Iran and the Straights of Hormuz? You decide.

Portions found via TPM and Kevin Drum

Up From The Comments

This is pretty interesting. JK writes in he comments:

If the Dems want to take a principled stand against the Admin, they should simply offer legislation stating that all military personnel must have a set amount of equipment, including body armor and armored Humvees. Put some action behind the support the troops but not the war. I would like to see the Reps explain why they just can not wait to properly outfit the troops. [edited]

Of course, you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you should have equipped.

John McCain: In Iraq 4 Evah!

On Anderson Cooper last night, presidential hopeful John McCain said that even if the surge doesn't work, we still have to stay in Iraq until, well, we find something that works. From Think Progress:

COOPER: Is there any scenario in which withdrawing troops would be acceptable to you, or redeploying them?

MCCAIN: Not until we have the situation under control, to the degree that the Iraqi government can exert its influence through most of the country, that you start with the — that you move forward with a political and economic process.

COOPER: So, success is crucial before the U.S. can pull out in any meaningful way?

MCCAIN: That’s my view. And that view, by the way, is held by the majority of experts that I know about the region.

I think McCain need to get to know some new experts. Even still, while his views are extreme when compared to most everyone else, other republicans on The Hill who are supporting the surge are simply doing so just to say they it one last good old college try. From US News and World Report:

US News Political Bulletin hears from GOP strategists with close ties to Capitol Hill that the President and his senior aides are too optimistic about keeping GOP congressional support for the Iraq war over the long term. One senior Republican adviser says Bush has "until April or May" to improve things in Iraq. If he cannot, he could face a GOP rebellion that could result in reductions in spending for the conflict and legislation to start bringing the troops home.

So, they are will to give it a couple of months before they try to save their own skin, huh? This is pandering of the worst sort. They are supporting an accelerated surge so that they can safely say that the surge didn't work and we can finally listen to the voice of the American people.

The time frame is extremely important because they are throwing our soldiers into a meat grinder for political purposes. They are giving the Army only until May to complete the surge they are supporting. The problem? From the Washington Post:

"We don't have the [armor] kits, and we don't have the trucks," [Lt Gen Stephen] Speakes said in an interview. He said it will take the Army months, probably until summer, to supply and outfit the additional trucks. As a result, he said, combat units flowing into Iraq would have to share the trucks assigned to units now there, leading to increased use and maintenance.

No equipment, no problem! Just get back by May and hell, we could save the fuel on sending the equipment over there. Good luck dodging bullets by the way. Any member that is going to support this strategy, and then not even wait for the equipment to show up to call for a redeployment out of the killing zone shouldn't be supporting it in the first place. It is crass, save your ass politics at its worse.

Movement On Darfur?

As always, progress on the African continent consists of unfulfilled promises unless there happens to be oozy black liquid or trinkets under the ground, but at least this sounds encouraging.

The 53 member African Union has rebuffed President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan in his attempt to ascend to the head of the Union. The post had been promised to him at last year's meeting, but was contingent on him reining in the militias in the Darfur region. Instead, the post will go to President John Kufuor of Ghana.

Hopefully, this will open the door to the insertion of 22,000 UN peacekeepers that al-Bashir has been successful in keeping out of the region.

It also appears that the United States is prepared to put a little more muscle behind the effort to end the violence. From JTA:

A top U.S. envoy warned Sudan that the United States has an “extremely aggressive” backup plan if Sudan contunues stonewalling on Darfur.

Andrew Natsios, top U.S. envoy to the conflict-ridden region of Sudan, briefed leaders of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs on his recent negotiations in the area in a conference call Monday.

Natsios said he stressed U.S. frustration with Sudanese foot-dragging on ending the carnage, which has claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives and which the United States describes as a genocide.

Plan A hasn't been working for years, so this appears to say we'd better see movement on Plan A, or else. Still, talking and doing are two completely different things and while we are in no position to insert troops on the ground, we could very easily enforce a no-fly zone, but it remains to be seen.

Bizarre Food Fact

Did you know that Americans on average consume 63 quarts of popcorn a year? Can that really be possible? Alton Brown says it's true.

I think I'm going to start writing about food here, it's a subject dear to me yet for whatever reason I've never touched on that topic here.

Passing The Buck

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has taken a look at requiring nuclear power plants to install defense systems to provide protection from a 9/11 style attack from flying aircraft into the containment domes of reactors and decided to take a pass at defending from such attacks. From The Columbus Dispatch:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that nuclear power plant operators should not be expected to stop terrorists from crashing an airliner into a reactor, saying that responsibility lies elsewhere.

Plant operators instead should focus on limiting radioactive releases and public exposure from any such airborne attack, the agency said in a revised defense plan for America's nuclear plants.

"The active protection against airborne threats is addressed by other federal organizations, including the military," the NRC said in a statement.

This is simply the wrong thing to do. In the event of such an attack, neither the FAA nor the military is going to have a fast enough response time to foil it. If terrorists decide to use such an attack, it will likely differ from the events of 9/11.

The days of taking over a commercial aircraft are over. There are too many operational hurdles in place now such as air marshals and let's face it, you would have to kill everyone on the plane now because nobody is just going to sit back and let you fly the plane into something.

Future aircraft style attacks are much more likely to be carried out by taking over an airfreight jet by hiding in the cargo and taking out the pilots, or even more likely from a small private passenger jet packed with explosives. In these type of attacks, it is very likely that the attackers would be well within reach of the targets before we had any idea what was going on.

It is a huge mistake for the NRC to pass this on to other organizations. What will be their responsibilities? From the Dispatch:

It said that various mitigation strategies required of plant operators - such as radiation protection measures and evacuation plans - "are sufficient to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety" in case of an airborne attack.

So much for being pro-active. I have to wonder how much lobbying was done to put the cost to operators over the safety of the American people.

And by the way, nothing emboldens a terrorist more than a weak spot in our defenses.

Credit Where It's Due

I am about to make a statement I don't think I've ever made before and doubt I'll have a chance to make very often in the future. David Brook's column in yesterday's NY Times was exactly correct. Since I read the dead tree version of it and do not have access to Times Select I'm not going to excerpt from it, but the gist of it was that in Iraq we should separate, lift, and leave in that order.

Brooks is absolutely right. Our mission in Iraq should be right now to separate the warring parties by aiding anyone that wants to move from an area occupied by opposing forces, give them humanitarian aid and then get the fuck out. Then, if al-Sadr and al-Hakim want to go at it over control of the oil in the south, so be it, and I do think that will be the end game. There just isn't much we can do about that.

Global Dumbing

I swear, the idiocy from the Bush administration when it comes to Global Warming knows no bounds. From the Telegraph:

The US has also tried to steer the report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions, the Guardian said.

In response to a draft copy of the report, the US said the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each IPCC report.

The response, obtained by the Guardian, says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

What they are talking about here is the lame-brained idea that we can shoot billions of tiny mirrors into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight to cool the earth. This would have a catastrophic impact on the earth and it just goes to show how simple minded the administration is when it comes to Global Warming.

You see, we would simply be trading one very bad problem for one that would more likely than not kill most everyone on the planet. The problem with lessening the amount of solar radiant energy that reaches the earth is that this energy is the single greatest catalyst in the evaporation process. Temperature has very little effect on it.

If you don't have evaporation, you don't have rain. And if you don't have rain, well, in a very short order you turn almost all of the planet into desert. Think of the US as a never ending sea to shining sea dust bowl where agriculture is a thing of the past. That means nobody eats. It would truly cause a famine of biblical proportions.

The fact that the executive branch of the most advanced country on the planet would propose such a thing is just mind boggling. We can never again let this branch fall into the control of such idiots.

Found via Talking Points Memo.

George Bush: Idiot

After meeting with David Petraeus today, George Bush had this to say. From CNN:

The president had strong words for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who are lining up to support resolutions opposing his decision to send 21,500 troops to Iraq. He challenged them to put up their own ideas. "Some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work," he said.

First of all, they have put up their own ideas. There are any number of bills floating around out there that do just that. The Reed / Levin plan comes to mind specifically.

Secondly, they are condemning a plan that isn't likely to work, but as long as we are talking about condemning plans without giving them a chance to work, lets see. Hmm. You might want to take a long hard look in the mirror. I won't ask you to go as far back as 2002 when you poo pooed Eric Shinseki's war plan and showed him the door.

No, I'll simply refer you back to a single month ago when you received the ISG's plan and rapidly file thirteened it. Such a jackass.

Speaking Of Wedges

The Dumbass right wing idosphere is currently working on their own wedge issue. They are attempting to wedge all of their Senators who are up for re-election in 2008 from the American people with something called "The Pledge." By signing "The Pledge", you are declaring that you will not give any money to any republican Senator that votes for any resolution regarding "the surge". This is priceless. From "The Pledge":

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

The republicans have, I believe, twenty-two Senators up for re-election in 2008. (A better blogger would fact check that, I won't) The biggest issue in that upcoming election will be Iraq, (Someone please tell Chuck Schumer that fact) so I think "The Pledge" is a wonderful idea.

The amazing thing about this to me is that they are doing this over a fucking non-binding resolution. Partisans on each side desire their candidates to have some form of ideological purity, but this is just plain totalitarian. Run with it kids! I'd like to see a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate.

I Know It's Arkansas, But

The lawyer of a reputed crack dealer in Little Rock is challenging the appointment of Bush toadie Timothy Griffin as US Attorney. John Hall says that because Griffin was appointed using a little known provision in the Patriot Act that allows for an end run around Senate confirmation, the appointment is unconstitutional.

I'd have to guess that the prosecution's case is a slam dunk for Hall to take this tactic. I did find this interesting from his motion though. From TPM Muckraker:

Conceivably, under the Attorney General’s interpretation of his appointment power in § 546(c), an incompetent or a blatantly politically appointed U.S. Attorney could hold office like this for seven and a half years, or even longer, assuming the President is re-elected, without ever facing Senate confirmation over his or her qualifications.

Um, when did we go to eight year presidential terms?

He's In It To Lose It

I generally ignore candidates announcing their candidacies for president, but then again, it's not every day that a candidate as amusing as noted food critic Duncan "Lemon Chicken" Hunter enters the race.

As you can see from the graphic, it looks as if Hunter might already have that key WWII flying ace demographic sewn up seeing as he has the crucial Chuck Yeager endorsement. (Mmm, Jager)

By the way, that's a terrible picture to use for this roll out. It seems to convey the message that I'm going to lecture you and if you don't like it, tough shit. I'm sure they thought it showed Hunter's toughness, but it ended up portraying him as a jackass.

Driving A Wedge

I've been meaning to write this up for a month or so, and since the New York Times revisits the story today I guess this is as good a time as any.

In case you haven't heard, there has been a brewing controversy over research being done at Oregon State University where scientists are attempting to learn the reason behind homosexuality in sheep.

Several groups and activists ranging from PETA to Martina Navratilova have denounced the research for various reasons, but the main objection is that this will lead down the slippery slope to breeding homosexuality out of humans. Now, bio-engineering human beings for desired traits is truly reprehensible, and realistically, there is no evidence at this time to suggest that this research on sheep brains or DNA will lead down that slope to discovering the cause of, or a "cure" for homosexuality. Our brains are a tad more complex than those being studied.

That being said, one group, the religious right, has been conspicuously silent on the issue. It seems like an issue they would want to wade in on, you know, the whole playing God thing. Wrong, they can't run away from it fast enough. From the Independent:

This experiment throws up difficulties for all sides of the millennia-long debate about homosexuality. It gives the forces of homophobia plenty to fume against by annihilating their most hoary argument: that gay sex is "unnatural". In reality, we live in - as the scientist Bruce Bagemihl puts it - "a polysexual, polygendered world", where species from beetles to shrews to chimpanzees have a consistent minority who prefer their own sex. It's everywhere: cow elephants often masturbate each other with their trunks (why has Sir David Attenborough never shown it to us?) and in the Bronx Zoo there is a famous pair of gay penguins called Wendell and Cass who sit on a little rock they believe is their egg. Human homosexuality is just another example of a universal phenomenon.

The homophobes know that when people realise this, homophobia becomes unsellable. The latest US poll found that 79 per cent of people who think human beings are born gay support full gay equality, while only 22 percent who believe homosexuality is a choice agree. The Family Research Council, an evangelical lobby group in the US, are in a panic. In their latest publication, they warn that discovering people are born gay "would advance the idea that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatised as racism". Uh-huh. So they spend hundreds of pages trying to debunk the new evidence.

The author is correct, but only about half so. The real worry of the religious right is that they will be pinched between the findings of this research and their followers. Sure, they care that others will suddenly think that gays are more acceptable, but their real concern is that it just might work, on sheep that is.

This would put the religious right in a very precarious position. One of the foundations of their organization is hating the gays. If this research bears fruit on ending homosexuality in sheep, how do they tell their flock that it shouldn't be expanded to see if the same can be done in humans.

They will of course have to take the position that they cannot endorse "playing God" because doing so blows many of their other arguments out of the water, but how do you work your followers up into a frenzy over homosexuality for a decade, and then when a possible solution to their perceived problem comes along, yank the rug out from under them? The smaller minded of their followers simply won't understand, and that scares them a hell of a lot more than additional tolerance toward gays.

The religious right has always made their money on losing and then rallying the troops because if they could just win a few more seats in Congress they'd get want they wanted. In reality if they ever got it people like James Dobson would then become irrelevant.

This can only be sustained for so long though before the natives get restless. Even Cubs fans expect a pennant every hundred years or so.

The natives are, in fact, already restless. Much was heard from the religious right about how the republican led 109th Congress only paid them lip service. How do you think they're going to feel if their leaders, like the aforementioned Dobson lead them to the Rubicon on the issue of homosexuality, then refuse to even dip a toe in it?

Kind of ironic isn't it, possibly one of the gravest threats to their flock comes from actual sheep.

New Video From The Noisettes

Why can't I hear music like this on my local radio station?

Oh, and just so you know, their first full length album drops here in the States on Feb 8th.

Daydream Pretender

Oh, if I could ride, into the West Wing
After W leaves this thing.
For that I’d even kiss James Dobson’s ring.
But even then, I’m surprised,
To find in Iowa, the war is despised.
My star has gone cold and it stings.

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

You once thought of me
As a maverick on a steed.
But now you know, just how wrong I can be.
Oh, and by the time I say the war can end
We’ll be left without dollar one to spend.
But how much healthcare do we need?

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

[Interminable Instrumental interlude]

Wake up, Sleepy John.
Your time has come and gone.
You’re a daydream pretender
And now you simply make us yawn.

[Surge and fade]

The Phlunkees - 2007

Surprisingly, still unsigned.

Not Taken So Well

I don't think I've ever seen as many negative comments as Liz Cheney's OP-ED did in the Washington Post. As of this time, there have been 2,326 comments to the piece. Record?

Ha

In case you didn't follow the Scooter Libby trial today, it appears Libby's defense is going to go at the Bush administration full force to try to get Libby off.

As Josh Marshall notes, do you think these assholes are happy now? To say I'm overjoyed would be an understatement.

They Hate Our Freedom Because They Are Lactose-Intolerant?

I know this is quite serious, but I had to chuckle when I read it. From Counterterrorismblog.org:

Last week a FARC truck bomb carrying 660 lbs of explosives destroyed most of a dairy owned by the Swiss food multi-national Nestle in the southern state of Caqueta [Columbia], one person was injured. Earlier in the week, also in Caqueta, a pair of cold-storage tanks owned by a Nestle supplier were destroyed in a FARC attack.

Damn lacto-terrorist milk haters. Seriously though, if they start bombing cheese factories then I'm all for an open ended deployment with no definition of victory. You gotta take a stand somewhere damnit!